.  >  > . 

:r 

■,-y  *&,  \  *4 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

LIBRARY 

Class 

Book  Volume 

3  "31 

S' t  3«t 

Ja  09-20M 

t  uv/””  Iml  1  UO 

N 

•  ,JL*-  U‘i?: 


' 


*  o  ^ 


TARIFF  TRACT  No.  3.  1880. 


Published  by  The  American  IRON  AND  STEEL  ASSOCIATION,  at  No.  265 
South  Fourth  Street ,  Philadelphia,  at  which  place  copies  of  this  tract  may  be  had 
free,  for  distribution,  on  application  by  letter. 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  TAX. 


.V6 - 

By  Giles  B.  Stebbins,  of  Detroit,  Michigan. 


“A  tariff  is  a  tax,”  we  are  told,  added  to  the  price  of  the  arti¬ 
cle,  not  only  domestic  but  imported,  and  hence  is  an  unjust  burden 
on  the  people,  helping  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many.  This  is 
a  false  statement,  as  facts  which  can  not  be  denied  will  show.  A 
few  brief  observations  will  open  the  way  for  the  facts. 

If  a  tariff  is  a  tax,  unjust  yet  sometimes  inevitable,  it  should  be 
assailed,  in  detail  or  as  a  whole,  and  broken  up  and  put  aside  as 
rapidly  as  possible.  Theorists  filled  with  abstract  ideas  of  Free 
Trade ;  importers  who  would  enlarge  their  business ;  and  foreign 
manufacturers  (especially  British)  wrho  would  supply  our  markets 
and  discourage  our  manufacturers  join  in  this  false  outcry,  mak¬ 
ing  it  the  pretext  for  reckless  attacks  on  our  tariff,  either  on  sin¬ 
gle  items  or  otherwise  as  may  seem  best  to  serve  their  end  of  its 
destruction. 

On  the  other  side,  if  customs  duties  really  serve  the  two-fold  pur¬ 
pose  of  protecting  and  building  up  home  manufactures,  and  thus 
improving  their  quality  and  decreasing  their  cost,  and  of  raising 
revenue  for  the  Government,  they  are  useful  and  for  the  common 
good,  and  should  be  regulated  and  kept  up  for  these  objects. 

"With  the  falsehood  of  this  pretense  that  a  tariff  is  a  tax  made 
apparent,  our  system  of  customs  duties  becomes  a  positive  benefit 
and  an  imperative  need,  to  be  made  as  permanent  as  possible  for 
the  sake  of  business  stability,  and  to  be  revised  only  in  a  broad  and 
comprehensive  method  and  spirit  and  in  view  of  the  interdepen¬ 
dence  of  different  industries,  the  relations  of  raw  materials  and  of 
partly  and  wholly  manufactured  products  to  each  other,  the  rates 
of  wages  in  our  own  and  other  lands,  and  our  revenue  needs. 


2 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  TAX. 


Each  nation,  in  view  of  its  own  condition  and  resources,  and 
prompted  by  an  instinct  of  self-preservation  and  self-justice,  will  aim 
at  a  fair  industrial  and  financial  independence,  without  which  pros¬ 
perity  in  peace,  defense  in  war,  or  any  permanence  or  power  for 
good  is  impossible.  Its  duties  on  imports  and  its  internal  revenues 
must  be  adapted  to  its  own  condition — to  the  development  of  its 
own  resources  and  the  encouragement  of  its  own  skill  and  labor. 
No  one  country  can  be  an  exact  model  for  another.  The  tariff,  for 
instance,  which  is  fitted  for  France  might  be  too  high  or  too  low  for 
us.  There  is  no  principle  at  stake :  it  is  simply  wise  expediency  for 
the  nation’s  good,  which  the  government  owes  to  the  people. 

History  tells  the  same  story  in  different  countries — the  building 
up  of  vast  industries  by  Protective  tariffs.  In  England  the  woolen 
and  iron  industries  had  tariffs  almost  prohibitory  for  three  centuries. 
A  score  of  times  the  duty  on  iron  was  raised,  from  $2.50  up  to  $35 
per  ton,  and  iron  grew  cheaper  all  the  time.  When  England  felt 
able  to  undersell  the  world  her  high  duties  on  manufactures  were 
repealed  and  the  Free  Trade  cry  was  raised ;  while  she  still  levies  a 
good  duty  on  the  sugar  and  tea  and  coffee  her  people  use,  and  gets 
some  $20,000,000  yearly  from  duties  on  the  tobacco  we  send  her ! 

Let  us  look  at  home  for  more  facts  and  so  find  stronger  refuta¬ 
tions  of  a  falsehood. 

Cottons,  imported  at  fifty  cents  a  yard  before  our  mills  were 
built,  have  been  exported  at  six  cents  under  a  high  tariff  and  of  a 
better  quality.  Cotton  hosiery  was  reduced  in  price  nearly  one-half 
from  1860  to  1868.  Delaines,  formerly  imported  at  35  cents  to  50 
cents,  were  made  here  in  1868  at  20  cents  of  equal  quality.  Wool¬ 
ens  grew  cheaper  under  a  tariff  that  built  up  mills  and  improved 
their  machinery.  In  1869  the  great  New  Yotk  importers,  A.  T. 
Stewart  &  Co.,  gave  the  United  States  Revenue  Commission  their 
prices  of  flannels  and  cassimeres  in  1860  and  1869,  the  list  opening 
with  cadet  cloths,  Government  standard,  at  $2.75  in  1860,  and  $2.71, 
gold,  in  1869,  and  a  score  of  items  showing  a  decrease  in  price  of 
from  5  to  25  per  cent.  Nails,  axes,  saws,  and  carpenters’  tools  are 
lower  under  a  higher  tariff  than  under  the  low  tariffs  of  1846  and 
1857.  We  export  axes  and  shovels  and  hoes,  and  a  British  Par¬ 
liamentary  report  tells  of  our  cutlery  gaining  on  theirs  in  the 
world’s  markets. 

Cast  steel  of  English  make  had  been  sold  here  for  twenty  years 
at  18  cents  or  over  per  pound,  and  none  was  made  here.  Under 
a  high  tariff'  our  steel  makers  began  work  at  Pittsburgh  and  else- 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  tJx. 


3 


where,  and  the  same  quality  came  down  to  13  cents  and  15  cents. 
In  the  late  civil  war  our  cast  steel  was  sold  at  32  cents  while  British 
steel  was  held  at  45  cents,  thus  saving  our  Government  large  sums 
in  its  war  consumption,  and  saving  us  from  dependence  on  a  foreign 
power,  always  dangerous  in  such  emergencies. 

In  1844  and  1846  it  was  shown  in  Congressional  debates  that 
glass  was  selling  at  $3.50  per  box,  while  the  duty  was  $4;  that 
nails  sold  at  31  cents  per  pound,  while  the  duty  was  31  cents;  that 
cotton  cloth  sold  at  6  cents  per  yard,  while  the  duty  was  7  cents. 
How  can  an  honest  man,  in  view  of  these  facts,  say  that  a  tariff  is 
a  tax  which  is  added  to  the  price  of  the  article  to  which  it  relates  ? 

The  Iowa  farmer,  cunningly  led,  as  some  are,  to  believe  a  lie, 
groans  over  the  moderate  duty  on  lumber,  as  adding  $1.50  per  thou¬ 
sand  feet  to  the  price  he  pays.  Had  he  studied  the  Chicago  prices 
current  he  would  know  that,  for  the  three  years  from  1863  to  1865, 
with  Canada  lumber  free,  the  average  yearly  prices  were  not  any 
lower  than  in  the  three  years  from  1867  to  1869,  when  the  duty  was 
20  per  cent.  Some  times  this  might  be  different,  but  this  shows 
that  the  duty  was  not  added  to  the  price  of  the  thousands  of  mill¬ 
ions  of  feet  of  lumber  sent  over  the  West  in  those  years.  It  may 
be  asked,  Why  then  do  our  lumber  manufacturers  want  a  duty 
on  imported  lumber?  The  answer  is,  Not  that  it  so  much  affects 
the  price,  as  they  furnish  the  larger  part,  but  that  the  duty  lessens 
the  imports  from  Canada,  gives  them  a  wider  market,  and  helps  to 
give  employment  to  200,000  American  workmen,  at  wages  30  per 
cent,  higher  than  in  Canada,  and  to  keep  up  a  home  market  for 
$30,000,000  of  the  products  of  our  farms  and  $20,000,000  of  home 
manufactures  which  they  consume  yearly. 

Deluded  dairymen  resolve  that  the  salt  monopoly  must  be  de¬ 
stroyed,  and  the  fearful  salt  tax,  in  the  shape  of  a  tariff,  under 
which  they  suffer,  must  be  abolished.  An  Illinois  dairyman  said  in 
a  convention  that  three-fourths  of  an  ounce  of  salt  to  a  pound  of 
butter  was  enough.  Call  it  six  pounds  of  salt  to  one  hundred 
pounds  of  butter,  and  suppose  the  tariff  of  12  cents  on  every  100 
pounds  of  imported  salt  is  a  tax,  and  when  the  groaning  dairyman 
sells  his  nice  firkin  of  a  hundred  pounds  of  butter,  and  pockets  his 
$20  or  more,  he  has  paid  a  tax  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent !  But  he 
has  sold  his  salt ,  which  cost  him  say  9  cents ,  for  over  $ 1.20 ,  and  still 
he  groans  about  the  tax!  No  revenue  is  more  equally  paid  by  all 
than  the  million  dollars  or  more  which  the  salt  tariff  yields  to  the 
Government,  which  averages  about  five  cents  per  head  of  our  total 


4 


a  Tariff  is  not  a  tax. 


population  and  oppresses  no  one,  while  the  price  of  salt  has  de-' 
creased  under  it,  as  our  home  manufacturers  have  competed  to  sup¬ 
ply  the  larger  part  of  the  demand.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that,  in 
1872,  when  Congress  reduced  the  duty  on  salt,  British  salt  dealers 
raised  their  prices  immediately,  to  their  benefit  but  not  to  ours. 

So  in  January,  1880,  the  day  that  a  cable  telegram  sent  word  to 
London  that  our  Congress  was  discussing  a  lower  duty  on  steel  rails, 
the  price  there  went  up  at  a  leap  $12.50  per  ton.  Break  down  our 
power  of  home  competition  on  any  article,  as  unwise  changes  of 
the  tariff  will,  and  we  are  at  the  mercy  of  foreigners,  who  consult 
their  own  interest,  not  ours. 

Some  falsehoods  are  ludicrously  absurd,  and  that  which  we  now 
consider  is  one  such.  In  1870  we  imported  190,000  bushels  of  po¬ 
tatoes,  and  levied  a  duty  on  them  of  25  cents  a  bushel,  or  $46,458. 
The  same  year  we  raised  240,000,000  bushels,  and  so,  if  a  tariff  is  a 
tax,  we  paid  an  addition  of  25  cents  on  each  bushel  raised  as  well 
as  imported,  and  the  farmers  pocketed,  at  our  cost,  $60,000,000  as 
their  profits  on  this  horrid  potato  tax !  Carry  out  the  figures  on 
wheat  and  flour  and  corn  and  the  result  is  far  worse.  Who  be¬ 
lieves  such  nonsense? 

“A  tax  on  knowledge”  is  what  Free  Traders  call  the  moderate 
duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  printing  paper.  A  great  cry  was  raised 
about  it  all  at  once  last  winter.  Suppose  it  is  a  tax  added  to  the 
price  of  paper.  At  the  present  price,  71  cents  per  pound,  it  would 
add  a  little  over  four  cents  a  year  to  the  cost  of  a  seven-column  week¬ 
ly  newspaper !  In  war  days,  with  paper  at  25  cents  per  pound, 
daily  papers  sold  at  about  their  present  prices.  Have  newspapers 
reduced  their  rates  in  the  past  year,  while  getting  their  paper  of 
our  manufacturers  at  less  than  6  cents — half  what  it  cost  in  1872? 
In  1872-3  the  price  was  12  cents;  it  fell  gradually  to  6  cents  and 
less  in  the  depression  of  1879,  rose  to  10  cents  in  “the  boom”  of 
1880,  and  is  now  down  to  71  cents,  with  the  duty  unchanged.  If 
the  tariff  is  responsible  for  the  rise,  why  not  credit  it  with  the  fall 
in  price  as  well  ?  Such  credit  would  destroy  the  false  theory  that 
“  a  tariff  is  a  tax.”  The  average  price  of  paper  for  the  last  four 
years  has  been  lower  than  for  the  four  years  preceding  (1873  to 
1876),  with  the  tariff  all  the  time  the  same.  Our  home  manufac¬ 
turers  are  giving  us  paper  at  lower  rates  than  in  the  past. 

Mechanical  wood-pulp,  for  paper-making,  was  first  made  and 
used  here  largely  in  1873,  at  a  cost  of  41  cents  a  pound.  It  was 
3*  cents  in  1877 ;  3  cents  in  1879  ;  and  is  now  31  cents,  or  below  its 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  Tlx. 


5 


cost  in  1873.  Here  again,  with  the  tariff  unchanged,  the  home 
manufacturer  gives  this  pulp,  or  raw  material  for  paper,  cheaper 
than  formerly.  Without  this  home  competition  of  our  thousand 
paper  mills  with  foreign  makers  prices  would  go  up,  both  for  pulp 
and  paper.  It  is  said  that  pulp  could  be  bought  in  Europe  for  a 
cent  a  pound,  while  it  costs  3£  cents  here.  If  so,  the  duty  and 
freight  could  be  paid  and  it  would  be  imported  and  landed  here  at 
1?  cents,  giving  a  profit  of  over  a  hundred  per  cent.  It  is  said, 
too,  that  Canadian  paper  could  be  bought  at  6  cents  a  pound  while 
it  cost  9  here.  If  so,  it  .could  be  imported,  duty  and  freight  paid, 
and  delivered  here  at  7?  cents,  giving  a  fine  profit.  Why  were  not 
pulp  and  paper  largely  imported  ?  Such  statements  don’t  “  hold 
water,”  as  the  phrase  is.  How  came  this  sudden  hue  and  cry  about 
“a  tax  on  knowledge?”  The  circulars  that  filled  the  land  had  all 
the  same  “ear-marks,”  as  coming  from  one  centre.  A  Yankee 
guess  would  put  it  at  Free-Trade  headquarters  in  New  York. 

A  wisely-adjusted  tariff  is  a  shield  against  foreign  goods,  which 
might  flood  our  land  at  cost  or  less  to  get  and  keep  our  markets, 
prevent  the  growth  of  our  manufactures,  and  then  the  makers  of 
these  goods  would  supply  us  at  their  own  terms. 

Hon.  A.  S.  Hewitt,  of  New  York,  a  practical  business  man,  not 
ranked  as  a  high  Protectionist,  said  lately,  while  discussing  the  du¬ 
ties  on  iron,  some  of  which  he  thought  might  be  changed :  “  These 
duties  have  conferred  one  great  benefit.  In  the  late  era  of  depres¬ 
sion  they  have  prevented  this  country  from  being  the  sink  into 
which  the  iron  of  other  countries  would  be  flung.  Had  the  duties 
been  low  enough  iron  importations  would  have  destroyed  our  busi¬ 
ness  and  closed  our  establishments  that  have  been  able  to  keep 
above  water  and  can  now  reap  the  benefit  of  renewed  prosperity.” 
With  these  establishments  closed  we  should  soon  be  in  the  condition 
in  which  1857  found  us.  British  efforts  had  reduced  our  tariff  un¬ 
wisely.  British  railroad  iron  flooded  the  land  at  $40  a  ton  until  our 
mills  were  ruined,  and  then  the  English  iron  men,  with  no  competi¬ 
tion  here,  sold  us  a  million  tons  of  rails  at  $80,  and  foreign  debt  and 
a  panic  came  upon  us.  The  same  principle  applies  to  other  products. 

Bessemer  steel  rails  were  first  made  in  this  country  in  1867,  but 
not  largely  until  1870.  Up  to  the  date  of  the  opening  of  the  first 
steel  rail  mill  here  the  English  controlled  our  market  and  prices, 
charging  us  $150  in  gold  per  ton.  The  moment  the  first  rails  were 
made  here  they  were  compelled  to  reduce  their  prices,  and  brought 
them  down  in  1870  to  $50.37  gold,  in  England,  equal  to  $57.93  in 


6 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  TAX. 


our  currency.  At  that  price  they  could  be  sent  to  New  York  and 
freight  paid  at  a  cost  of  $62  per  ton,  with  no  duty.  Since  then  our 
American  mills  have  furnished  our  railroads  with  2,504,763  tons  of 
steel  rails  at  an  average  cost  of  $59.69  per  ton  in  currency,  their 
prices  going  down  from  $106  in  1870  to  $40  in  the  panic  times  of 
1878,  up  to  $85  in  “  the  boom  ”  of  1880,  and  now  stand  at  $60. 
This  great  business  employs  over  20,000  American  workmen,  pays 
over  $7,500,000  yearly  in  wages,  and  has  furnished  us  steel  rails 
for  ten  years  at  an  average  price  a  little  less  than  the  English  price 
in  1870.  How,  then,  has  the  tariff  on  steel  rails  been  a  tax  added 
to  their  price  when  we  began  to  make  them  ? 

Our  farmers  may  well  bear  in  mind  the  benefits  of  home  manu¬ 
factures  to  them,  and  thus  see  more  clearly  the  falsehood  of  this  bold 
assertion  that  “a  tariff  is  a  tax.”  The  lumbermen  of  the  three 
States  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota  use  yearly  some  $11,- 
000,000  worth  of  farm  products  at  good  prices,  and  the  iron  and 
steel  and  woolen  mills  add  millions  to  this  home  demand.  The 
farmer  wants  cheap  transportation ;  and  manufacturers,  giving  large 
freights  to  railroads,  help  this  as  nothing  else  can.  The  steel  rail 
mills  of  Chicago  alone  pay  some  $3,000,000  railroad  freights  yearly, 
transporting  over  2,000,000  tons  of  ore,  coal,  etc.  More  business 
means  lower  rates  of  freight,  and  railroad  rates  are  30  to  50  per 
cent,  less  than  ten  years  ago,  the  farmer  sharing  this  benefit,  and  his 
home  market,  East  and  West  and  South,  is  larger  and  better  than 
his  foreign  market. 

Such  illustrations  of  the  fallacy  of  Free  Trade  assertions  are  abun¬ 
dant.  The  frequent  and  ignorant  tinkering  with  our  tariff  system, 
stimulated  by  the  falsehood  exposed  in  this  pamphlet,  is  unwise  and 
injurious,  and  should  be  ended.  Our  revenue  wants  forbid  any 
large  reduction  of  duties.  A  tariff  revision,  broad,  comprehensive, 
and  promising  stability,  is  not  objected  to,  although  not  urgently 
needed,  but  the  sooner  we  send  to  the  moles  and  bats  this  falsehood 
that  “  a  tariff  is  a  tax  ”  the  better. 

A  tariff  is  not  a  tax  added  to  the  price  of  the  article  but  a  means 
of  creating  a  home  competition,  giving  us  fair  prices,  paying  Amer¬ 
ican  workers  decent  wages,  giving  our  farmers  larger  and  better 
home  markets,  raising  needed  revenue,  and  keeping  our  wealth  at 
home  instead  of  draining  it  away  to  foreign  lands  and  loading  us 
with  fearful  foreign  debts.  The  philosophy  of  the  whole  matter  was 
well  given  by  that  great  statesman,  Alexander  Hamilton,  in  his 
famous  report  in  1791,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  TAX. 


7 


But,  though  it  were  true  that  the  immediate  and  certain  effect  of  a  tariff  was 
an  increase  of  price,  it  is  universally  true  that  the  contrary  is  the  ultimate 
effect  with  every  successful  manufacture.  When  a  domestic  manufacture  has 
attained  to  perfection,  and  has  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  it  a  competent 
number  of  persons,  it  can  be  afforded  and  accordingly  seldom  or  never  fails 
to  be  sold  cheaper,  in  process  of  time,  than  the  foreign  article  for  which  it  is 
a  substitute.  The  internal  competition  which  takes  place  soon  does  away  with 
everything  like  monopoly,  and  by  degrees  reduces  the  price  of  the  article  to 
the  minimum  of  a  reasonable  profit  on  the  capital  employed.  This  accords 
with  the  reason  of  the  thing  and  with  experience. 

This  eminent  man  had  not  learned  that  a  tariff  is  a  tax  !  Wash¬ 
ington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Webster,  and  other  great  men  were  in 
equal  ignorance,  and  so  advocated  tariffs.  The  sagacious  Franklin 
urged  on  farmers  the  benefits  of  home  manufactures.  That  friend 
of  the  people,  Abraham  Lincoln,  declared  himself  an  advocate  of  a 
Protective  tariff.  Frederic  List  in  Germany,  the  French  statesman 
Thiers,  and  other  eminent  foreigners  were  and  are  in  the  same 
*  ignorance.  The  great  Frenchman  urged  on  the  Assembly  in  1870 
their  duty  toward  the  national  industry,  saying :  “  Prosperity  con¬ 
sists  in  the  nation  drawing  from  its  own  soil  and  from  the  genius  of 
its  inhabitants  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  well-being.”  Even 
Professor  Reuleaux,  President  of  the  German  Commission  at  our 
Centennial  Exposition,  went  home  and  said :  “  The  present  condi¬ 
tion  of  American  manufactures  shows  the  fallacy  of  the  Free  Trade 
doctrine  that  the  productions  of  a  country  are  raised  in  price  by 
Protective  duties.”  The  London  Engineer,  devoted  to  the  interests 
of  British  skill  and  manufactures,  is  compelled  by  facts  to  say : 
“As  far  as  the  American  consumer  of  iron  is  concerned,  he  is  the 
better  off  for  Protection.” 


Why  should  the  Cobden  Club  of  London  assume  to  know  the  in¬ 
terests  of  American  farmers  better  than  the  farmers  themselves? 
The  Club  has  published  a  pamphlet  intended,  we  are  told,  to  open 
the  eyes  of  these  farmers  to  the  injuries  of  our  Protective  system. 
They  probably  understand  their  own  business  better  than  their 
advisers  in  England,  and  will  not  be  induced  by  any  number  of 
pamphlets  to  set  aside  a  system  which  has  raised  the  United  States 
to  the  rank  of  one  of  the  greatest  manufacturing  countries  of  the 
world,  and  opened  innumerable  home  markets  for  their  agricultural 
products. — New  York  Tribune. 


8 


A  TARIFF  IS  NOT  A  TAX. 


The  following  frank  statement  is  from  the  London  Colliery 
Guardian  of  June  18,  1880  : 

“  Too  much  importance  can  not  easily  be  attached  by  the  com¬ 
mercial  and  manufacturing  classes  to  the  bearing  of  the  fiscal  legis¬ 
lation  now  being  conducted  by  the  British  Government.  The  free¬ 
ing  of  the  raw  materials  of  manufacture  from  taxation  is  one  of 
the  cardinal  principles  which  should  influence  the  law  maker ; 
while  the  effort  to  secure,  at  the  least  possible  cost,  all  attainable 
freedom  in  trade  intercourse  with  distant  nations  should  be  persistent. 
It  is  impossible  for  legislation  with  this  dual  aim  to  be  frequent  and 
undeviating  by  such  a  people  as  the  English  without  most  satisfactory 
issues  in  the  legislation  also  of  other  peoples.  The  working  out  of 
new  treaty  details  may  well  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  men  who,  as 
members  of  the  government,  have  it  already  in  hand,  assisted  as 
they  will  be  by  the  British  Iron  Trade  Association  and  other  combina¬ 
tions  of  manufacturers,  who  have  already  expressed  to  the  Foreign 
Secretary  their  readiness  to  afford  the  technical  help  which  falls 
within  their  province.” 


4 

The  Cobden  Club,  of  England,  is  disseminating  Free-Trade 
literature  among  the  Western  farmers  of  this  country,  with  the 
view  of  effecting  a  change  in  our  industrial  system.  The  argument 
is  that  by  the  Protective  policy  the  farmers  of  the  United  States 
are  being  crushed.  The  intense  sympathy  of  Englishmen  is  so  ex¬ 
cited  that  agitation  is  entered  upon  at  once  to  allay  the  pain  of  the 
British  bosom  and  to  relieve  the  distresses  of  the  American  farmer. 
The  American  farmer,  however,  is  likely  to  pause  awhile  before 
admitting  the  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed  by  the  English. 
He  is  not  crushed,  nor  is  he  distressed  in  his  occupation.  The 
farmer  of  America  is  a  prince  in  opulence  when  compared  with  his 
European  or  English  brother.  And  he  knows  that  he  is  so  because 
the  industrial  policy  of  his  country  makes  possible  great  prosperity 
by  strengthening  all  classes  of  industry. —  Cincinnati  Artisan. 


